If someone else made a FF digital RF?

If someone else made a FF digital RF?

  • Yes, as well as an M9

    Votes: 16 2.8%

  • Yes, instead of an M9

    Votes: 201 35.3%

  • Maybe, depends on the body

    Votes: 248 43.5%

  • Probably not, but possibly

    Votes: 44 7.7%

  • No

    Votes: 45 7.9%

  • Other

    Votes: 16 2.8%
  • Total voters
    570
ajuk

ajuk

Established
Local time
5:52 AM
Joined
Nov 6, 2006
Messages
88
OK if someone else brought out a FF RF a lot cheaper than an M9, and for argument's sake let's say it's based on a fairly decent body like the Bessa R3 or Zeiss Ikon and it's got a decent sensor with comparable resolution and quality to that in M9 and oh yes and it also had an M mount, would you be interested?
 
Hell yes.

I've owned an R3a. It wasn't too terrible. A bit noisy, not built very tough, but usable.

I think the Ikon VF is awful though. Very low contrast.
 
I'd be interested, but it also depends on the price. If its only slightly cheaper than a M9, then no. If it's half the price... maybe. It's unlikely to happen I've been told.
 
ajuk said:
OK if someone else brought out a FF RF a lot cheaper than an M9, and for argument's sake let's say it's based on a fairly decent body like the Bessa R3 or Zeiss Ikon and it's got a decent sensor with comparable resolution and quality to that in M9 and oh yes and it also had an M mount, would you be interested?
Click to expand...

Everything depends on the design and feel of the body, and what lenses work with it properly. I bought the M9 because I wanted the format and feel of my M4-2 and it had to work well with the lenses I'd already acquired for both the M4-2 and the Ricoh GXR with A12 Camera Mount.

I'd certainly love to have spent less than $6000+ for a camera body, but having done so, I'm not likely to buy anything that doesn't perform as well.
 
Probably, yes, if it's no larger.

I don't expect it, though...

I would also buy an updated 1.3x crop sensor rf, if the cost savings were significant.
 
There's £2000 difference in the cost of an M7 and M9 here.
Looking to Nikon F6 seems to cost about £1500, the D3s body costs £3500 for what I assume is a body of the equivalent quality of the F6, so that's £2000 more for the electronics and sensor, even though it's the same electronics in the D700. Hmm.
 
I would be interested, provided that it was significantly less expensive than a leica. I am considering an NEX 7, and that would be the first camera that I ever bought to break the $1000 threshold. A FF rangefinder would be very attractive in the $4,000 range
 
I'd be strongly interested. I'd love for Epson to pull out an R-D2, upgrade the sensor, maybe drop the corny shutter advance (though it does save one from buying an accessory, vestigial "Thumb's Up" or "Thumbie" and slapping it on). I'd actually be fine with a good APS-C sensor, but I know that's heresy around here. I've been Full-frame, and it's not the seventh heaven it was made out to be.
 
I definitely do not expect digital camera with optical RF (like Leica) to come to life. But I do not see why a mirror-less camera (a'la NEX7 or Ricoh GXR or such) could not be made with FX sensor for under € 3000 (cutting off the optical RF saves A LOT of money)

I mean - look at the sensor for Ricoh GXR M-mount - it is the best non-Leica sensor for wide angle M-mount lenses (thanks to lack of AA filter and addition of micro-lenses) and it costs about 600 €. Now why a module of double the size could not be made for triple (give or take) the cost? There is no "new" technology needed. 24 Mpix with the performance of the current sensor of the GXR M-mount module would smoke the output from M9 - and the sensor in the GXR was already superseded.

What keeps all this away from us is that VERY MOST users do not (for a good reason, to be honest) care for FX sensor or M-mount lenses. That makes the target base (I am guessing here) 20 - 100 times smaller than "common" mirror-less user.

EDIT: reading the above answer I just realized that there are cameras for € 600 that do indeed have a very usable optical RF - so indeed a camera like Epson RD-2 would be interesting and doable.
 
Matus said:
EDIT: reading the above answer I just realized that there are cameras for € 600 that do indeed have a very usable optical RF - so indeed a camera like Epson RD-2 would be interesting and doable.
Click to expand...

But the RD-1 was 3000 EUR with a 1.5 crop sensor. We are again at the point if there is someone who believes seriously that an M9 equivalent can be produced for significantly less money. I don't believe this.
 
Would I want one? Of course. Who wouldn't?

Is it anything more than a pipe dream? Well, that's another question.

I'd like my Land Rover to do 80 mpg as well.

Cheers,

R.
 
I prefer something like a Zeiss Ikon over a Bessa, body-wise, for the accuracy and nice viewfinder. If this other camera costs less than half, let's say under $4,000? Then hello, M-Mount!
 
The DXO marks of the NEX 7 puts it up there close to the M9 so no. Just how much IQ do you have to have for a street camera? Also the NEX 7 works well in manual mode plus focus peaking.
 
ajuk said:
There's £2000 difference in the cost of an M7 and M9 here.
Looking to Nikon F6 seems to cost about £1500, the D3s body costs £3500 for what I assume is a body of the equivalent quality of the F6, so that's £2000 more for the electronics and sensor, even though it's the same electronics in the D700. Hmm.
Click to expand...

The D3s body has very different electronics from the D700.
 
I don't see any pure optical RFs coming out besides Leica's. Hybrid and EVF would be more attractive for a manufacturer most likely.

If Ricoh came out with a FF A24 M-mount module....
I like the Ricoh body and funationality. The EVF is OK, better than it's specs. Focus peaking is nice. Focus magnifaction even better. But the best part is that the A12 M mount is built for using M lenses. There is no compromise, no adapters - and it works very well. Oh and no AA filter!
 
not too many people on RFF who wouldnt want that ... but it just doesnt seem likely.

i'd pay up to $3,000 for an m9 alternative. otherwise i am forced to stick with my d700 for FF needs :/
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom